|
Lamquin posted:Zeitgeist does look incredibly fun, but I'm not quite ready to switch over to the more modern feel the adventure seems to have. It's not as good as Zeitgeist, but stands up to Paizo APs up to mid paragon (where my party Darwin Awarded itself). The first adventure is ... shaky, and the first few are all using MM1 stats. I really should at some point try and remember what I did in the first two modules and write it up because I think that my version was a vast mechanical improvement. Off the top of my head, the pieces that need changing in module 1 (Gate Pass) are: 1: Chasing down the sewers after a ferret just annoys people. Have a kid down there instead. 2: Flaganus Mortus is a single human built as a solo on MM1 principles and completely sucks. Pinata full of hit points. I replaced him with an elite from a downed dragon, and had one of his junior officers try to rescue him. (Thanks to various natural 20s my PCs managed to turn the rescuer and recruit him for the defence of Gate Pass). 3: Random encounter using half a dozen boneshard skeletons. Aaaagghh no! Boneshards are lethal and the encounter is dull and irrelevant at best and utterly lethal at worst. (I replaced the whole thing with a run against a low ranking Inquisitor who ended up biting a cyanide capsule just to deny the PCs their kill - and the highlight was locking the paladin in an Iron Maiden and having four mooks try to slam the door closed). And my change in The Fire Forest was to turn all the fire zombies into much more fire-zombieish things; insubstantial unless you cooled them down first (either by cold damage or dropping them into some sort of water feature) as well as coming back to life some of the time. Also Links to the errata'd classes: Fighter Warlord Warlock Cleric Rogue (there may be a better link but I don't think so) Wizard
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:08 |
|
|
Drake_263 posted:So hang on, let me get this straight. To build MM3 style monsters that aren't long buring unfun slogs, I'll want to make sure: *Increase the average damage done by a monster swing by half their level *Give Brutes +2 to hit *Make sure elites do as much damage as two ordinary monsters - but cut their defences by two IIRC *Ignore pre-MM3/MV solos entirely. They are mostly unsalvageable. Compare this red dragon to the version in the Monster Manual. quote:3: For monsters I'm creating from scratch, use the HP and AC bonus by role table? For monsters you are creating from scratch, use the MM3 on a business card for their baseline stats, then move them around a little. That card is for creating, not for converting. quote:For the record, I've mainly DMed 3.5 before so it feels kind of weird to not build huge 3.whatever-type statblocks. Liberating, but weird. Yup! Enjoy it 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Wahad posted:I'm playing one of those right now and it's fun as hell. If it's the wrong way to play 4e I don't want to be right. Why? Why would you want to do that? It's not realistic and destroys my versimilitude  I mean we should stick to gritty realism and naturalistic environments in our games of Dungeons & Dragons  In all seriousness, it sounds like fun. Which feats does it take?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
When hybrids work well it's normally down to the action economy, and when they don't it's again due to the action economy and MAD. As a rule of thumb Controllers almost exclusively use Standard Actions Defenders (other than Paladins) are based round Interrupts (and to an extent their standard actions). Leaders want minor actions (They are a common exception to the don't hybrid within role rule because you can create more minor actions) Strikers are based round standards and sometimes interrupts. If you are using more action types than your base classes you win the action economy as long as you don't have negative synergy elsewhere. This means you seldom want to hybrid two standard action classes (controllers or strikers) with each other - you can only take a standard action once/round. On the other hand adding Lazylord to a non-leader means you're now making use of your minor actions for healing - a huge win. Wizard|Swordmage again plays with the action economy very successfully. But putting it brutally, hybriding a striker (or controller) with a leader means you get 100% of the punch of striker (or controller) powers while using striker powers (i.e. most of the time especially if you have something like Twin Strike), and healing almost for free. Wardens and swordmages make for the best hybridding defenders due to only wearing light armour - and hybrid well with any other role that shares their stats. Controllers and strikers seldom hybrid well with each other, and defenders don't with other defenders or anyone in much lighter armour. Edit: And if you're willing to take risks, the best controllers are Malediction Invokers with Superior Will. As long as you don't mind dazing yourself...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
I've been talking about Trifold 4e on and off for a while in chat. It's far, far closer to a clone of 4e than any I've seen before - but I've made a few tweaks to it (the Skill System has had the skills changed, mostly the interaction skills although endurance has gone and dungeoneering's now engineering* - and I've said that the default is a hex grid for two). I've also changed HP to stun and dying to KO - with a Coup De Grace killing anyone KO'd. And a couple of things like Charging have been relegated to power cards. The plan is that a 4e clone cut down like this can much more easily enable others to build classes (the hard work), and for hacks. Magical Girl, Super Sentai, and Professional Wrestling come to mind. Levelling will be game-specific I think. What do people think? * The new list of skills is
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:I've been talking about Trifold 4e on and off for a while in chat.... Apparently I am a complete idiot. Giving the link to Trifold 4e might help.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Couple questions: For me or for a table? For myself I'd prefer the PHB1 (six good classes in there with the Pally being a little weak and the Ranger a little strong - they've got the other six errata'd online). For a table I'm almost certain that there will be someone who wants to Just Hit Stuff and not worry about the mechanics. I wouldn't play a slayer but they are perfect for some people and there are enough classes in HoF* that I have choice and can give others choice. quote:Secondly, how did 4e Encounters work? Was it pregens only, or were there criteria/limitations for building your own? If so, what were they? A season started at level 1 and ended at about level 3. You could build your own using the latest splat but no one cared too much if you used other sources in my experience.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Hell yeah. All we got for shared stories was Splug, who was like a Meepo also-ran. I believe someone did a line by line comparison a few years back. And from memory there's no less information on Splug - it's simply that there was more information elsewhere. quote:It's pretty shameful how bad 4e published adventures were. Late 4e adventures weren't terrible. Gardmore Abbey, The Slaying Stone, and the Monster Vault and DM's Kit adventures.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
OmanyteJackson posted:Well i'm working on making an essentials style engineer class, with robots and bombs n' poo poo. I've only done levels 1-10 so far https://docs.google.com/document/d/13AJ9n1IA5WFBwZLsNa2EGKyByC0RoqAWjawj15ShLpk/edit#heading=h.pq9c39kvwqde Burst 3 At Will? There goes any chance of the DM running minions ever. And the automaton is going down hard, probably in the first fight. One healing surge worth of damage? And can't be recovered until an extended rest? Not going to survive. So most of the fight you're mixing up basic attacks, burst 1 bombs, and burst 3 bombs. Not the most fun combination. Also how is Fire Suppression a burst 3 weapon attack? What sort of weapon?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
cbservo posted:So, my first Dming session I mentioned a couple pages ago is coming up this Sunday. If she's trying to be captured and they don't twig this straight off, she slips away from the PCs. They were looking the wrong way. And you leave a trail of breadcrumbs to show she slipped away. Only if they are really alert will they prevent that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Looking at the Master of Stories [Multiclass Bard] feat from HotFW, I noticed it lets you use the healing from skald's aura once per encounter. Is this errata'd/nerfed anywhere? Because most leader MC only grant you their healing power 1/day.. Yes it was for precisely that reason. I can't remember where.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
Bikindok posted:So, I may be involved in a 4e game for the first time since release (seriously, last time I finished a dungeon was Keep on the Shadowfell) and holy poo poo, I have no idea what I'm doing. I kind of want to run a Warlock, but have heard that mechanically, they're not very good? Should I just swap over to Sorcerer, or can I make Warlocks not suck somehow? I like the Star Pact but I'm not under any illusions about it being anything but a bad idea. First, if you aren't using the Character Builder, you need the errata'd version. You probably also want to trade away your Eldritch Blast for Eldritch Strike. Second, Warlocks are great for making the DM cry when they want to use solos. They are somewhere between mediocre and really obnoxious when played well the rest of the time - but they take a lot more work than most classes to be tactically effective.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Lord of Bore posted:Learned Spellcaster (Wizard MC) or Divine Secretkeeper (Invoker MC) both grant ritual casting as well as a free skill training. Both require Wis and Int 13 Option C is, of course, Bardic Ritualist (Bard MC), requiring Int and Cha 13 - so less likely but possibly even more useful.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:The actual best power in 4e is any power with a name that you can bellow as you use it. (Which is yet another reason why Fighter and Warlord are the best classes in the game.) Objection:Vicious Mockery. You never name that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
If I want zero prep beginners work for a one shot I'm probably breaking out Dread or Fiasco. Not anything D&D-ish.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
djw175 posted:Did that change dragons or are they still all the boring claw/tail/claw and tail/breath creatures? The easy way to answer that is to show you the Red Dragon from the Monster Vault previews. The tail attack is a reaction. Note the Instinctive Assault and the Bloodied Breath features.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Apropros of nothing, how flexible is 4E character design? Can you make a Striker Cleric or a Defender Wizard or a Controller Paladin with enough splat/feats? I'm just curious. Mu. A defender wizard would be a wizard who walks right up to the enemy and gets in their face, distracting them from attacking anyone else. You can't do that with the wizard class any more than you can do it with any other incarnation of the D&D wizard (although I would point out that a Pyromancer makes a pretty good striker). But you can easily be a spellcaster who walks right up to the enemy and gets in their face, using magic to bind them from attacking anyone else. That's the Swordmage class. Striker Cleric - no. A Cleric is a divine champion inspires their team mates (although you can make a pretty good controller Cleric). If you want to be a sword wielding holy warrior there's the Avenger class (or the Blackguard for the avatar of divine wrath in plate armour) - and if you want to call down the wrath of $Deity on your foes, an Invoker of Wrath makes a pretty good nuking spellcaster. Controller Paladin? A Paladin is a holy warrior in shining armour who's a beacon for friends and foes alike and in the thick of battle. A controller is a distance fighter who screws up the enemy and prevents them having targets. You can play silly buggers with some Paladin builds to really disrupt the enemy (like my gnome Paladin who started almost every fight by throwing out marks on everyone in Burst 3 then turning invisible) but if you want to call down the power of the divine to stop the enemy doing things, it's probably an Invoker you want (although it might be a Cleric). And as others have said, the big gap in 4e is the inspiring person you can't see (there are a number of Bard builds that aren't bad at this but none are great; I'd probably favour some sort of Lazylord* variant multiclassing into Rogue). * The Lazylord or Lazy Warlord is a type of Warlord that gives away all their attacks to other people and normally doesn't even touch a dice in combat. You need a certain mindset to find one fun to play but they can be very effective, and are frequently played as the comic relief. And there's no reason you shouldn't use powers outside combat or aimed at no one with the arguable exception of adrenaline-fuelled reactions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:Generally this stuff seems helpful, but why would anyone pick 4e if not to force fights often, since that's really the only strengths the game has? Other than a fluid skill challenge system that if used as a scaffold rather than a straightjacket gives 4e the best out of combat experience of any D&D unless you're hardcore dungeon crawling (admittedly "best out of combat D&D for non-dungeoncrawling" isn't a high bar to jump). Mordiceius posted:What 4e houserules do you use in your groups? Inherent bonusses - which allows me to cut down items I give out sharply, and to hand out much more weirdness without anyone worrying too much. Extended Rest = Long Lazy Weekend/narrative break. Means the PCs need to plan much more how deep to go and you sometimes have the invoker tanking because the fighter is out of healing surges. Long rest = 8 hours was one of the worst decisions 4e made.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:The Mage features are generally held to be a pretty even trade for the Wizard ones as long as you pick a good build of Mage. Warpriests are a partially missed opportunity. What a Warpriest should be is a build. "You take fluffy combination X, Y, and Z that are subpar in character creation and you get bonus B. Or people not taking the combo can choose freely."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Let's talk Natural 1s. Do you ever do anything special when your players roll natural 1s? Do you just leave it as "you miss, badly" or do you take it further? Ask them if they want to reroll. If they don't it's a miss. If they do and they still miss they fumble badly or break their weapon. Their choice whether to take the risk. (i.e. rules stolen from Dark Sun).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
BattleCake posted:I seem to hear a lot from people (including the OP of this thread) about how the introduction adventures of 4e (i.e. Keep on the Shadowfell, etc.) were very bad. I played Keep on the Shadowfell many years ago in high school but I can't really remember too much about it. Can anyone shed some light on why the published adventures were so bad? Just curious. It started decently up to the Irontooth fight. Then once you entered the keep there were 17 combat encounters in a row (I counted) with almost no plot advancement and a not terribly interesting environment. Combat in 4e should be a climax - throwaway combats are a grind. If you think of 4e combat as big budget action scenes, John Rogers says how to do it right and Mearls did everything wrong. Just bad writing, made worse by a quick fight not being a thing in 4e.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:The later ones are pretty good. The slaying stone, Reavers of the Harkenwold I wouldn't call The Slaying Stone good. Just not terrible. Which makes it stand out by contrast.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Does anyone have a link to a good essay about "what killed 4e" that isn't just gravedancing or stupid random poo poo? I wasn't able to find one using Google, and I feel this might be a topic worth writing about. One thing that I'm concerned about is that the 3.5 people are quite literally erasing reality and saying that the system failed because it was rejected en masse, when it seems to me that it died mostly from bad bloat, bad adventures, a few fundamental math problems that were easily fixed, and of course the most important thing - Mearls deciding to kill it dead because it wasn't "real D&D". Not really. But in a nutshell: Step 1: 4e was written in half the time intended because 10 months into the 24 month development cycle they realised they had a bad game and threw everything out to start from scratch. That year of missing dev time meant that it was almost a year after launch that it was a decent game. (I'm not criticising the decision to redo from scratch - but they needed more time to kick the bugs out of the math and the presentation). 4e was launched in mid 2008 but didn't really sing until 2009. Strike 1. Step 2: The adventure 4e was launched with, Keep on the Shadowfell, was awful. Mike Mearls' first adventure was boring, uninspired, and precisely the sort of piece of boring crap 4e handles worse than any other edition. (It's not even entertainingly bad like The Forest Oracle - just dull and grindy). Many people who went into 4e with an open mind played this and found it a terrible experience and thought that that was the way 4e was meant to be. Strike 2 Step 3: The people most likely to talk about D&D on the internet were those who were most invested in it. They were generally the people who liked things like Caster Supremacy, and who hated change. They managed to turn discussion about 4e into a toxic pile of sludge full of outright lies. So Internet message boards had a hate on for 4e. Strike 3. The 4e online presence is limited because it's just not worth it. Step 4: Paizo. Stupid policy decisions by WotC left a company with massive reach and a legitimate grudge against WotC, and full license to do whatever they liked with the 3.5 rules. I've no time at all for Paizo's mechanics, but as a company they are superb, doing just about everything right. If only Pathfinder was a better game... Pathfinder was launched in mid 2009. Step 5: Essentials in late 2010. In response to Pathfinder, Mearls produced Essentials which was an attempt to court 3.5 fans with 4e rules about a year after Pathfinder came out. This starts an edition war within the 4E community, brings in almost no new people, and causes people to stop buying new 4e stuff because it's not useful. The 4e fanbase is further pissed off because the Offline Character Builder stops being updated and a lot of home groups stick to just what's in the builder. Step 6: Within six months (early 2011), by producing a lot of material, Pathfinder overtakes post-Essentials D&D in gaming shops. They are at this point producing more books per month than WotC is in a quarter Step 7: The last 4e book is produced in early-mid 2012 - and is pretty terrible and half full of adverts for other WotC products (the Dungeon Survival Handbook). In mid-late 2012 Wizards tries to produce a systemless book about Menzobarranzan which sinks like a stone (only a few hundred copies sold I think). Step 8: D&D 5e announced at the end of 2012, surprising almost no one. Step 9: In November 2013 (the last date we have publically available data), D&D Insider had an annual income of approximately half Paizo's entire annual turnover. (Boards changes mean we no longer know how many subscribers there are). This despite Mearls pissing off the entire engaged 4e fanbase. Step 10: In mid-late 2014 5e is given a staggered launch. There's almost nothing for people to buy after this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I'm sorry, let me clarify: skill challenges sucked, basically didn't work very well, and the published adventures and dragon magazine stuff were very railroady pieces of skill challenge into the next combat into the next combat into the next skill challenge affairs. So reading this it was pretty obvious that the designers were mostly focused on fighting 4e Skill Challenges were (to use one of the few times GNS is appropriate) a narrativist mechanic explained by a simulationist. I've had my own go at explaining them as a part of my retroclone Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Can anyone give me specific references on the D&D Insider in 2013 still making a lot of money thing, and the ICv2 stuff that ProfessorCirno mentioned? I mean, if you have direct links handy. Google is returning a lot of stuff. For ENWorld, Morrus at ENWorld has been collecting the ICv2 stuff. The specific references on D&D Insider take a bit of insider information and are analysis; there is a group on the WoTC boards that all people who subscribed to D&D Insider were memebers of, and we'd checked that people were removed in real time when their subscription lapsed. WIth the number of people in the group in November 2013 at the cheapest possible subscription, WotC was making $5.85 million/year.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Strictly speaking if you want the most powerful leader in the game it's warlord, because you grant free attacks to the striker. Outside of that warlord is pretty bleh and if you find having other people take your turns boring, it's even more bleh. Warlord is simply the charop choice, nothing else it does besides constant access to bonus attacks is that interesting (though before long these are insanely powerful). For the record, the other thing the Warlord does is the Bravura Warlord. The ridiculously rash guy who gets the enemy to attack them, and forces nasty choices on them. If you've even a standard fighter in the party it's great fun and pretty interesting as to when you take the risks and when you play safely. The lazy warlord is better in a razor-optimised party, but the Bravelord can keep up with an average party and, if you like that sort of thing, is extremely fun. (If you look at Brash Assault and it immediately turns you off, even with the Harlequin Style feat, play something else).
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
I still remember fondly my Gnome Chaladin's SOP. Moon the enemy, turn invisible, then moon them again next turn and tell them he could do this all day. Mechanics: Level 2 utility power to divine sanction everyone in a close burst 3. Gnome racial to turn invisible. Level 1 encounter that divine sanctioned in a close burst 3 if he hit. And minion hordes used to throw down their weapons when they saw the light (took radiant damage). Also the plate armour + heavy shield/enfeebling strike/divine sanction combo worked pretty well to start the debuffs (-2 to hit him, -4 to hit anyone else, and he played tag team provoke tactics with the party fighter against any big bad guys). As for the Essentials classes, I'm actually a fan of the Thief. Mostly because the thief I played didn't have Tactical Trick (so I had to think). Instead he used to delight in abusing Acrobat's Trick for a Death From Above (I have a climb speed? Up the wall, across the ceiling, and I have Acrobatics so I can land on my feet while my daggers land point first in the enemy's back). Essentially they were a class that was light on the combat options, but had effective ones, in exchange for extra utility power shenanigans (climb at will, and the ability to hide almost anywhere). Different but viable and interesting to play - the sort of thing late splatbooks should be producing. The Bladesinger was always better than it was given credit for being - but all the guides I ever read were misleading. The trick with the Bladesinger was that you almost never wanted to use the bladespells on the same creature you were attacking - and there was no point ever setting up your bladespells to do more than one damage (which flew in the face of almost every optimisation guide ever). The point was you could apply a debuff to anyone on the map - including a lot of the more irritating lurkers that thought they were safe this turn. Two of the options were situationally amazing and one was very good; the amazing ones were the ability to knock anyone you liked prone (making it easy to exploit the "Charge Hole" that people who were prone could be too near an enemy to charge and too far to melee) and the ability to slide anyone, friend or foe, three squares including out of trouble. And the ability to apply a to hit debuff to anyone (especially the elite or the solo you weren't actually facing) was just useful, as frequently was a single point of Radiant damage. Dueling one foe while not even needing to roll to mess with others. (And in terms of power level they just needed to power swap their daily power and get a paragon path that gave them an encounter power they could use under Bladespell) And I'm glad the Slayer, the Scout, and the Knight all existed. They broadened the game even if I wouldn't choose to play any of them. And for warlocks, most warlocks were ranged (although I always went for Eldritch Strike, not Eldritch Blast). My Feylock was arguably a melee warlock; his at will SOP was to use Eyebite and a staff - Eyebiting the enemy to be invisible to them (not taking the AoO due to Staff Expertise), hiding from them, and leaving them in a bind - if they swung I was both invisible to them and hidden from them - while if they tried to walk off I had a decent AoO. But two of his three encounter powers were ranged debuffs (Witchfire = You didn't want to bother attacking this turn, Mr. Dragon; -5 to hit makes things pointless, and Mire the Mind is just as good). The Feylock is a single target controller - and the combo Come And Get It/Fey Switch/Otherwind Stride/Sorceror or Pyromancer Boom has destroyed many an encounter. If you want single target damage on the other hand you want the Elemental Pact which has a pact boon that inflicts vulnerability 5 to whatever damage type most of your powers are. And the Infernal Warlock has some awesome feats - I can't remember what it's called, but there's one that turns minions into grenades if you've cursed them (which I took knowing that the GM was going to go minion heavy, and combined with a Rod of Corruption).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:So I had an interesting conversation with some friends today about why they really didn't like 4th. It mostly boiled down to them not liking the feel of the AED for non-casters, and that the mechanics side is more exposed. Also, we sort of haven't run into caster supremacy, because the only person who basically ever plays a full caster is terrible at choosing spells and playing tactically, along with tending to stop around level 12-ish. It was really weird how we all basically agreed that it was a better system mechanically, but they still preferred other d&d systems because of the feel and the fact that our casters sucking caused them to not be that effective (also some great arguments about them not min-maxing, but they do a lot more of that than any casters we've had). Wasn't really sure how to move the discussion to get them more on board. This is one of the things Essentials gets right. Not always, but for some people. The Thief can just do stuff. Like climb anything or hide where no one else can. Everything's at will except the set-up opening attack. It's a gem of a class (and I think the high point of Mearls' design). The Scout is a roving ball of two weapon death that does everything you would want a ball of two weapon death to do. The Knight works. "This is my space!" And with Defend the Line/World Serpent's Grasp thing knocking everyone down they feel mighty. It's more limited than it should be and has problems with forced movement. But in heroic it really works. (Slayers are for casual players who don't care about mechanics and the Hunter would be great if it scaled a bit better). And it's also something I was very much looking at for the classes for my retro-clone.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:All I can speak of is having one on the other side of the table during mid/high paragon. The Hunter made his presence felt during every battle, and stayed effective. I needed to take his capabilities into account as much as I did any other character. Bladesingers I don't find too bad. Tricky to play but a lot stronger than they look on paper. Now Binders, Vampires, Executioners, and especially Shroud Assassins - there we have problems.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Like when all is said and done, Leaders are cool because they make the whole team feel extra awesome, Strikers are cool because doing a ton of damage is always rad, Defenders CAN be cool when they're defending by leaping in front of the monster who's trying to attack you and pounding it so hard with a hammer they go flying back 50 feet and can barely understand it has hands in the next round, and Controllers...Controllers are there to make everything less cool. They make the fight less dramatic. OK. No. Or rather partly. Controllers who just apply debuffs suck - but they aren't the worst of the four roles. Controllers are there for two reasons - firstly they are the person the defender feels awesome by protecting (this goes double for a self-dazing Malvoker). Secondly it's all about the terrain and movement. A good pyromancer will set the ground on fire, making the defender that much more awesome. Or a good orb wizard will throw monsters into anything already on fire. A good controller either sets people up for others to put away or exploits an existing set up. Needless to say Essentials messed things up with the Enchanter because Mearls Wizard Supremacy. Beguiling Strands is ridiculous overkill as an at will with the Enchanter bonus. (That said, the Pyromancer from Dragon is very cool and the Nethermancer, Evoker, and Illusionist are pretty decent). The sucky role, and the one that makes the fights less dramatic is the Leader. The monster just hit hard. Oh noes! Now we need to use one of their heals and we'll never know who it was. Some panic button is good - but when they go much beyond * Word the whole thing turns into that much more of a grind. The Dishearten-spamming Psion can miss with their attacks - the Pacifist Cleric never does with their heals.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Bravelord bestlord And it's not just the pacifist clerics. It's the healing builds in general (Laser clerics and Inspiring Warlords in particular - although I have a special hate for Artificers that ruin the strategic "Count the healing surges" game). And when you double up on leaders in the same party.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:I'm running War of the Burning Sky which means I need to redo all the monster, because the monster design is dumb. Given I cannot sign up to the online tools, what is the bet approach to get this done these days? MM3 on a business card and think of powers as schticks. It doesn't take long per monster if you're going from scratch unless you're doing a solo when you're best off stealing from the book.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
pookel posted:It's all premade adventures - we're going through a book campaign. I don't think that's terrible per SE considering none of us ever played 4e before, but it adds to his insistence on playing it exactly as written even when it's unbalanced. No one has asked the obvious question. Which book campaign? They upgraded the 4e monsters after a couple of years because they actually were too weak.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Nalesh posted:Hm, what would be good ways to use this poisons secondary use? There is from memory an assassin at will that lets you get within a couple of squares of your target. As a single turn you move in, put that on whatever clothes they are about to put on, and then slip out of the room. Instant compliant kidnap victim/helpless target.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Immobilised doesn't mean compliant, it just means they can't leave their space. They can still punch you in the loving face. They can still resist. They just can't run away. Any PCs who can't take advantage of that aren't worthy of being PCs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
It's good to be playing 4e after months off. Although I may have inspired the DM to raise the difficulty of combat a little; adding a bravura warlord to a party with three martial characters and a paladin with a good MBA when we have a house rule for an action point every combat has apparently turned a solid party into an utterly lethal one. Brash Assault with harlequin style, a sanction-happy paladin, and a ranged rogue is especially lethal - and I've also inspired our artful dodger to deliberately provoke opportunity attacks by marked targets.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
NachtSieger posted:Brash Assault+Harlequin is fun but your DM could just... not take the incentive, which leaves BA roughly as effective as a... Basic Attack, and IIRC Harlequin doesn't force the issue, just makes it safer. The other attack grants in the PHB and the MP2 are better anyways, but I'm glad you're having a blast with Bravura Warlords because they're my favorite kind of Warlord If the DM doesn't take the bait (and some don't) then BA+Harlequin is, paradoxically enough, a tanking at will that gives me a bonus to all defenses against that target until the start of my next turn. I've already got Direct the Strike as my other at will, leaving only Commander's Strike.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 10:20
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Yeah the Dragon of Tyr is a big, walking monster with a glowing "PLEASE STUN-LOCK ME" sign. To be fair even MV solos often become pinatas with powers like Witchfire (Feylock L1 Encounter power) that inflict attack debuffs for a round. We have a house rule that solos can shrug any condition for the cost of an action point - and certain solos can do it for a cost in HP.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
Free Triangle posted:We're approaching paragon tier and I need some build advice. If I already have Improved Defenses on a fighter should I consider picking up Superior Will? I'd only be gaining +1 will, but I'd also get a free save on stun/daze effects. It's definitely a good option if you don't have a feat heavy build (Polearm Fighters I'm looking at you). If you do so retrain Improved Defenses into Superior Fortitude as Resist 3/Tier vs ongoing is well worth moving some Ref into Fort for. (If you do this you'll eventually want to see if you can get Superior Reflexes by Epic). The only question is how close to Paragon are you and whether there are any Paragon feats you are eyeing; it's very common to retrain your final feat or two at Heroic for a Paragon feat or two when you hit 11 and possibly 12.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
Free Triangle posted:Thanks for the advice, while I'm approaching polearm gamble would it be worth retraining swift spear to forced opportunist so I can push away non-reach melee opponents? Or would you grab both? I can't find Forced Opportunist. If you mean Agile Opportunist think how often you get pushed (not often) and you already have uses for your interrupt. The fighter is possibly the least useful class for Agile Opportunist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:08 |
|
|
Free Triangle posted:Woops I mean forceful opportunist, it allows you to push on attacks of opportunity, while swift spear allows you to pull on oppies. Assuming you're going for a fairly standard polearm package then the Forceful Opportunist/Spear Push/Polearm Momentum/Polearm Gamble combination is more than slightly horrifying to enemies - step next to the fighter and end up looking at the sky, two squares away, and marked; Swift Spear doesn't get Spear Push so it doesn't get Polearm Momentum. And four feats (plus Expertise and probably Weapon Focus - and possibly greatspear or gouge proficiency) is a huge investment giving you not many feats to use on other stuff. neonchameleon fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2018 11:09
|
|